People v. Mosteller CA3

Filed 6/16/21 P. v. Mosteller CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090167

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18F7556)

v.

JACOB TRACY MOSTELLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the trial court denied his motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence, defendant Jacob Tracy Mosteller pleaded no contest to a single count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. On appeal, defendant asks us to review the sealed portion of the search warrant affidavit and in camera proceedings on the motion to determine whether the trial court erred in sealing the affidavit and denying defendant’s motion to quash the warrant and suppress evidence. He also challenges the basis for the search as deficient. We have reviewed the materials in question and will affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant’s Conduct and the Searches According to the public portion of the affidavit supporting the search warrant at issue, Officer Paul Slagle, working with the Shasta Inter-Agency Task Force, conducted surveillance of Enrique Puga, a suspected drug dealer. Officer Slagle received information from three confidential informants that Puga was selling and distributing heroin in the area. Surveillance of Puga’s home established that he drove a black Camaro and a silver Chevy Silverado. A member of the task force observed Puga driving the Silverado, followed by a woman in a sedan. The pair drove a short distance and then drove slowly through various parking lots, which the officers believed to be a counter- surveillance technique to determine whether they were being followed by law enforcement. The officers also noted that narcotics dealers frequently travel in tandem with a “load car,” which would typically carry the narcotics for sale. Later that month, task force agents saw Puga drive his Silverado through town in a similar pattern, driving slowly into various business parking lots, waiting in the parking lots for a short period of time while scanning his surroundings, and then driving to a different parking lot. Puga did this for one or two hours before driving to defendant’s residence. Defendant’s residence was only a 15 minute drive away and the agents interpreted Puga’s “meticulous counter surveillance techniques” as a sign defendant played some role in the distribution operation. Shortly thereafter, Officer Slagle saw a white Toyota 4Runner, which was registered to defendant at his residential address, parked at Puga’s home. Officer Slagle checked defendant’s criminal history and determined he had prior convictions for possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350),1 transporting a